It seems that Facebook may or may not have hired former Bush Administration Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris to help the company deal with impending regulatory changes.  The truth is, it matters very little.

In fact, the noise about Muris’ joining Facebook and his resume is misdirection. So, too, is the point — assumed but quite logical — that his hiring is all about brokering a deal with the FTC.

A sharper point is the uneasy state of Facebook’s relationship with its users. The catalog of actions that have brought the company to this “point” are well-known. What ought to come next, though, is more than hiring a “fixer” or cutting a deal with regulators. Until Facebook makes privacy an understood and essential aspect of customer service, it will look like any other self-interested company seeking to protect a market, not the rising tide it fancies itself, lifing all boats.

Privacy is not a standard (set by law or regulation) that needs to be met.  Instead, it is a negotiation between customers and the companies with whom they do business.  Just like return policies and direct marketing and affinity clubs, privacy must be formed to support the relationship; clear in each moment, but flexible to respond to changed circumstances.

Facebook is an essential part of its users’ days.  Mr. Muris’ job status makes little difference as to whether 400 million users become 4 billion or 4 million.  That is up to Facebook.

Share

The recent snowstorms in Washington, D.C. led to more than closed schools, postponed events and shovel-sore muscles. The unusually cool atmospherics became a hot metaphor in the argument against climate change. After all, how could the climate be warming and there be all this snow?

The back-and-forth was captured in a story on Fox News:

The battle between science and politics also was the subject of a recent NPR  “On the Media” story on the now-debunked link between a measles vaccine and autism.  Here is what Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet, had to say:

“We used to think that we could publish speculative research which advanced interesting new ideas which may be wrong, but which were important to provoke debate and discussion. We don’t think that now.  What we don’t seem able to do is we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation in a public space about difficult, controversial issues, without people drawing a conclusion which could be very, very adverse.”

The most disturbing part of what Dr. Horton said, because it seems to be true, is “we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation.”  For communications professionals this is at best a caution, at worst, a call to arms.  Most of our work is focused on adding context to the actions of our clients.

But context — be it scientific, medical or financial — requires an ability to see in three-dimensions.  How can we succeed when our public discourse is locked in black-and-white?  It demands we be more precise.

When the LA Times took another look at the D.C. snowstorm it did just that:

“Increased snowfall fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures warm the world’s bodies of water, leading to more evaporation.  Climate scientists say the amount of atmospheric moisture has increased, which they predict will bring more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures.

‘All you need is cold air and moisture to meet each other’ to make snow, said Jay Gulledge, senior scientist for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. ‘And with global warming, the opportunities to do that should be more frequent.’”

The misunderstanding and misuse of the word “warming” in the “global warming” warning undercuts its value as context.  Perhaps “change” as in “climate change” is more effective, but, based on Mr. Michaels said to Fox News, that may be lost, too.

The  most effective argument at a time when science is so willingly dismissed may not yet have been made.  But just because the task of adding depth and perspective to political, social and commercial conversations has gotten difficult doesn’t mean it cannot be fought and won.

Share

The Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy had a twist of an ending — Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat (and current State Attorney General) Martha Coakley.

In moves reminiscent of a call to “round up the usual suspects,” Democrats are pointing fingers and conjuring conspiracies while Republicans cite the one-state result as evidence that the nation has rejected the policies of President Obama.

Sadly, it is not important which, if either, has a leg to stand on.  What matters is that politics, the way it is practiced in the United States, has again played its trump card over policy.

The status quo may need to change, but change is unsettling to the special interests who benefit from holding it at bay.  Worse, it may be that those who need the status quo changed the most had a hand in maintaining it.

Newly minted Senator Brown won the election with about 1.17 million votes.  Combined with the 1.06 million cast for Ms. Coakley, the total represents just 54 percent of Massachusetts’ registered voters (and only about 45 percent of people in the state eligible to vote).  Where the heck was everyone?

In November ‘08, 72 percent of registered voters went to the polls to elect President Barack Obama.  The 18 percent difference in registered voter turnout between then and now represents 750,000 votes.  Brown beat Coakley by 110,000 votes.

The Presidential and special Senate elections suggest there is a positive relationship between the number of people who vote and the responsiveness of our politics.

As more people vote, the contributions of special interests hold less sway.  As more people vote, politicians are caused to listen more closely to constituents so as to keep elected office.  As more people vote, there is a premium put on leadership. These seem like good outcomes.

So, why don’t we vote?  Where were the good people of Massachusetts who turned out at the end of 2008, but stayed home in early 2010?  Maybe they did not think they had a reason to vote. This is not a political problem but a communications challenge.

Perhaps they felt the race was over days in advance as media reports persisted in reporting on the race, not its reasons.  Perhaps they thought their cause was lost, having learned of the U.S. Senate’s new math where 41 is a majority.  Perhaps they resented the way each candidate was foisted on them, wishing a pox on both their houses.

Here is a thought.  Presidential advisor Rahm Emanuel has said “change requires a crisis.”  If he is right, when it comes to elections the best kind of change might be the anarchy that would arise if everyone voted.

If all 4.2 million registered Massachusetts voters had gone to the polls, it would have created havoc for those who benefit from the status quo.  If all 5 million who could vote, did vote, it would instigate just the kind of uncertainty that leads to anarchy.  And if that became the norm, well, now we’re talking real change.

Share